6
\$\begingroup\$

To be clear, I'm not complaining about this question being protected. But I'm not sure what prompted this question to be protected, given that as far as I know only one answer got into the stuff in the linked comment (and said answer was subsequently deleted)?

Is there a canonical behavior for the behavior of an object that would have its weight/mass reduced below 0?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Presumably because it has 4 deleted answers so far, and since it's not about D&D 5e it's highly likely to get more. \$\endgroup\$ – Miniman Jun 18 at 0:02
17
\$\begingroup\$

There are actually 4 deleted answers to that question (which takes 10K rep to see).

2 of those answers are from brand new users, 1 is from a new user that has the associated bonus rep, and 1 is from a fairly new, low rep user.

None of the 4 answers submitted answer the question asking about canonical behaviour from Anima Beyond Fantasy sources and instead try to use real-world physics as a basis (something that doesn't generally apply to fantasy settings) or other off-topic-for-the-question reasoning.

I protected the question to simply prevent more off-topic/non-answer answers from new users swarming in.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah. I only caught the one that went on about behavior in AD&D. \$\endgroup\$ – Stackstuck Jun 18 at 0:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .